Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Maddow has put forward an interesting theory that the closing of the George Washington bridge ramps was not payback against the mayor of Fort Lee, but against the leader of the New Jersey Senate, who happens to represent a district including Fort Lee.

couldn't this mean that racial achievement gaps and racial disparities in crime rates are caused, in part, by biological factors instead of cultural or social ones?

Yes, it is possible. But it is irrelevant to "race". If there are biological/genetic factors involved, then you can sequence DNA ignoring skin color or ancestry.
It is also possible that the corrections are bad, or the metrics are bad.

Dozens of House Democrats broke ranks with President Obama on Friday to support legislation that would require people to be notified of security breaches under ObamaCare. The House passed the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, H.R. 3811, in a 291-122 vote. Sixty-seven Democrats voted for the bill, ignoring arguments from party leaders that the bill was a "messaging" vote meant to discourage people from signing up for insurance.

Democrats with safe seats can toe the WH line, but those in electoral jeopardy are going to look to distance themselves from unpopular Obama policies.

Democrats with safe seats can toe the WH line, but those in electoral jeopardy are going to look to distance themselves from unpopular Obama policies.

You realize that Congress is essentially independent from the executive branch and can vote however they like. Obama has power, but it is not like Congress has ever "had to toe the WH line" for any administration on either side. In fact I would hope most congress critters are voting their beliefs and not toeing any lines - though of course most of them are to one group or another.

You the headline is some folks in Congress vote how they want? OK then.

The Christie stuff is interesting -- for the most part, the guv is getting what he deserves -- but the Bob Gates story will have far more lasting repercussions.

Courtesy of Politico, here are a few of the former Defense Secretary's "gripes" that may not have appeared in the earlier Woodward article:

On the Iran National Intelligence Estimate:
In the fall of 2007, the intelligence community undercut the Bush administration’s efforts to ramp up diplomatic pressure on Iran, Gates writes, when it concluded in a report that Iran had shuttered its nuclear weapons program in 2003. “In my entire career in intelligence, I believe no single estimate ever did more harm to U.S. security interests and diplomatic efforts,” Gates says.

. . .

On the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal:
In June 2010, Gates got his hands on an advanced copy of a Rolling Stone article that quoted Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, mocking administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden. Before a pre-scheduled meeting with Obama the next day, Gates says he got a call from Biden, who insisted to the defense secretary, “I didn’t rile him [Obama] up last night, I just asked him if he’d seen the article.” When Gates stepped into his meeting with the president, the first thing Obama said was that he was “leaning toward” firing McChrystal, Gates writes, adding, “He went on to say, ‘Joe [Biden] is over the top about this.’ (So much for Biden’s credibility.)”

On Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak:
During the Arab uprisings in early 2011, Obama’s national security staff met to discuss the president’s plan to call Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, with whom the United States had a three-decade relationship—and whose immediate ouster Gates cautioned against. Despite the fact that he and others advised Obama not to reveal the contents of the call publicly, “The president overrode the unanimous advice of his senior-most national security advisers, siding with the junior staffers in terms of what he would tell Mubarak and in what he would say publicly”—including telling Mubarak that “change had to begin ‘now.’”

. . .

On the Osama bin Laden raid:
Although Gates elsewhere describes Obama’s crackdown on leaks, he also explicitly blames the White House and CIA for revealing details about the “techniques, tactics, and procedures the SEALs had used in the Bin Laden operation,” despite his warning not to release them. “Everybody in that room agreed to keep mum on details. That commitment lasted about five hours,” Gates writes of the night of the raid, adding that the White House and CIA “just couldn’t wait to brag and to claim credit. The facts were often wrong, including details in the first press briefing. Nonetheless the information just kept pouring out. I was outraged and, at one point, told Donilon, ‘Why doesn’t everybody just shut the #### up?’ To no avail.”

Interestingly, the one Obama administration official who Gates greatly admired was then-CIA Director and Gates' successor, Leon Panetta:

On CIA director Leon Panetta:
The Obama administration surprised many in Washington when it brought in Leon Panetta, a longtime congressman and a top budget official in the Clinton administration, to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Gates found Panetta “smart and tough”—and says his political experience was valuable. “Occasionally, Leon would doff his CIA hat and offer the president some hardheaded political advice on contentious national security issues,” he writes. “I thought he had more insight into the political realities in Washington than anyone at the table, including Obama and Biden.”

I don't see any of those "revelations" as damaging. They're just Gates' opinions. For instance, how is an intelligence community report that undermined Bush administration Iran policy going to have repercussions? That's ancient history. So is the bin laden thing.

Although Gates elsewhere describes Obama’s crackdown on leaks, he also explicitly blames the White House and CIA for revealing details about the “techniques, tactics, and procedures the SEALs had used in the Bin Laden operation,” despite his warning not to release them. “Everybody in that room agreed to keep mum on details. That commitment lasted about five hours,” Gates writes of the night of the raid, adding that the White House and CIA “just couldn’t wait to brag and to claim credit. The facts were often wrong, including details in the first press briefing. Nonetheless the information just kept pouring out. I was outraged and, at one point, told Donilon, ‘Why doesn’t everybody just shut the #### up?’ To no avail.”

they had to say something about it. killing bin laden is a big ####### deal, and it would not have sufficed to just say it had been done in a press conference, but release no details about how.

i can see how that would annoy gates, but at the same time, that's a case where you should pat your own back.

The Christie stuff is interesting -- for the most part, the guv is getting what he deserves -- but the Bob Gates story will have far more lasting repercussions.

the funny thing is, america would love this #### if christie was president and he was doing it to russia or china or iran. his buddies used their shadow-authority to put their proverbial thumb in the eyes of his political opponents and we would eat this #### up as a country if it was putin getting raked.

I don't see any of those "revelations" as damaging. They're just Gates' opinions.

If they were your opinions or mine, Kevin, they wouldn't be damaging. When they belong to the former Secretary of Defense, who was held in such high esteem by Democrats and Republican "realists" alike when he replaced Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections and stayed on after Obama got sworn in, yeah, it matters.

So yeah, it matters just as much when Gates takes on Obama, Biden, Hillary, Daley, Donilon, and Rhodes as neo-Cons and other hawks.

That's ancient history. So is the bin laden thing.

And yet W is somehow still being blamed for everything that's going wrong on Obama's foreign policy watch. How curious.

The non-Politico political pages seem to be saying he's overall quite bullish on Bush, Obama, and Hillary despite particular critiques of them each individually. Finds Biden personally impressive but possessing terrible judgment. I haven't read the book but that seems the judgment of the columnists who have, as opposed to the Politico people who were leaked excerpts to get press.

This oneis my favorite pulled out of context bit from the Gates memoir so far:

I was put off by the way the president closed the meeting. To his very closest advisers, he said, "For the record, and for those of you writing your memoirs, I am not making any decisions about Israel or Iran. Joe, you be my witness." I was offended by his suspicion that any of us would ever write about such sensitive matters.

Apparently written without irony in a section in the writer's own memoirs!

Gates also says Obama made the right calls on the big foreign policy decisions.

Try that approach with your girlfriend/wife/partner -- I love you overall, honey, but see how you screwed the pooch on this, this, this, and this? -- and check out how she reacts. (And maybe don some chain mail first.)

Of course I read it. His overall thoughts on Cheney were already known.

BTW, Kevin, if Dick Cheney still had a political future, you'd better believe Gates' thoughts on him, even if recycled, would be big news. But he's not. OTOH, Obama is still POTUS, while Biden and Hillary are likely White House contenders.

Try that approach with your girlfriend/wife/partner -- I love you overall, honey, but see how you screwed the pooch on this, this, this, and this? -- and check out how she reacts. (And maybe don some chain mail first.)

What a bizarre comment. Do you think relationships only survive for as long as people think the other person has not made a single mistake?

Dickerson's pieceon why the response to Gates has been so dumb feels right on to me. It is a book meant to go beyond gotcha, to show strengths and weaknesses of all the people he dealt with, and people are taking pieces out of context for a headline. Which is what writers do and what Gates' agent probably wanted, but shouldn't be mistaken for a summary of the book, much less analysis.

So, if you don’t like President Obama, you quote Gates’ claims that he engaged in “wishful thinking” and lacked nerve when things went bad and that his White House micromanaged on a level with the Nixon White House. Or you can choose to note that he says the Obama White House was “determined to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work.” (Ouch.)

If you do like Obama, you can cite any of the several times Gates calls him “bold,” the blanket statement about his Afghanistan policies (that his every decision was right and that he frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats”), and Gates’ characterization of Obama’s call to go after Bin Laden as “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

If you like George Bush, you cite Gates’ appreciation for his sense of mission, respect for the military, and genius in turning around the Iraq War. If you don’t like him, then you can highlight that Gates affirms that the invasion of Iraq “significantly compounded” the problems in Afghanistan, implies that Bush took his eye off the ball in the war on terrorism, and says that Bush’s Afghanistan strategy was “embarrassingly ambitious” and “historically naive.”

Those using Gates’ words to bash Obama or Bush are acting out the precise pantomime that Gates hates so much and that appears to be the central target of this book. His chief worry is that “moderation is equated with lacking principles and compromise with ‘selling out.’ Our political system has rarely been so polarized and unable to execute even the basic functions of government.” The ideologues tweezing snippets out of the reviews of Gates’ book for their never-ending slap fight are using the secretary’s authority to make their points. But if you’re going to use his authority in that instance, then you have to sit still for his larger verdict, which is that you and the zero-sum fracas you’re engaged in are what is ruining our government.

There are limits to what even the strongest and greatest nation on Earth can do—and not every outrage, act of aggression, oppression or crisis should elicit a U.S. military response.

This is particularly worth remembering as technology changes the face of war. A button is pushed in Nevada, and seconds later a pickup truck explodes in Mosul. A bomb destroys the targeted house on the right and leaves the one on the left intact. For too many people—including defense "experts," members of Congress, executive branch officials and ordinary citizens—war has become a kind of videogame or action movie: bloodless, painless and odorless. But my years at the Pentagon left me even more skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories or doctrines that suggest that war is anything other than tragic, inefficient and uncertain.

The oldest VP to be elected President in his own right was – actually both Truman and GHW Bush were 64 years old when elected President, though Truman had been President at that point for over three years.

Biden was 66 when he took office as VP. I know that 74 is the new 64, which was the new 54; and I know that HRC isn't a great deal younger, but still. Biden would be the oldest Presidential candidate ever, unless I'm forgetting somebody? Older than Reagan in '84, Dole in '96, or McCain in '08. Good for him, if he can do it.

When millions of health-insurance plans were canceled last fall, the Obama administration tried to be reassuring, saying the terminations affected only the small minority of Americans who bought individual policies. But according to industry analysts, insurers and state regulators, the disruption will be far greater, potentially affecting millions of people who receive insurance through small employers by the end of 2014.

While some cancellation notices already have gone out, insurers say the bulk of the letters will be sent in October, shortly before the next open-enrollment period begins. The timing — right before the midterm elections — could be difficult for Democrats who are already fending off Republican attacks about the Affordable Care Act and its troubled rollout.

Although only very limited information is available, early data also suggests that ObamaCare remains an unattractive option for many whom the Administration expected to be in the individual market pool - data from 7 states and the District of Columbia shows that 22% of enrollees are age 18-34, the Administration had hoped for over 38% in the 18-35 group. Looks like it will take more than happy talk to salvage this mess.

FWIW, Jason, Republicans are pretty much the only ones I ever see talking up Biden as a future candidate. I think there may be a certain amount of wishcasting going on there.

This is true. He's raised his flag more than once and had it shot down. I think it's pretty apparent the Dem based is gearing up for a Hillary run, and I don't think Biden will see the handwriting on the wall and not waste his time.

Maddow reached pretty hard and seemed pretty fired up. The thrust of her argument was more or less that:

1. Christie was probably more pissed off about the State Senate/appointee thing than he would have been about the endorsement thing, or something else about Sokolich, and that his (Christie's) behavior WRT the former was unusual, in a number of respects.
2. At the guv's Aug 12 presser he referred to the State Senate Committee in question as "animals" and pulled a Repub judge going for lifetime tenure's name from the process so as not to "subject" her to dealing with the evil of the Committee. Maddow plays the clip in the link above. Christie does indeed use the word "animals" but does not appear to be all that pissed off about it.
3. The now-infamous "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" email was sent on Aug 13 at 730 am, so given the issue and the time frame, Maddow suggests--strongly suggests--that there was a connection.

There is other subtext, but those are the basics.

What Nuzzi does is not a "debunking", although it does raise some questions.

Having watched the link and read the supposed debunking, I am not convinced that Maddow is wrong, and I was also not convinced that she was right after I watched the link yesterday.

To understand Kentucky's conflicted relationship with the federal government, 50 years after hosting President Johnson's launch of the "War on Poverty," is to meet Terry Rupe. The 63-year-old widower can't remember the last time he voted for a Democrat, and he's got nothing nice to say about President Obama. He's also never had health insurance, although he started working at age 9. Since his wife's death four years ago, he's been taking care of their 40-year-old, severely disabled daughter full time. She gets Medicaid and Medicare assistance.

"I don't have any use for the federal government," Rupe said, even though his household's $13,000 yearly income comes exclusively from Washington. "It's a bunch of liars, crooks, and thieves, and they've never done anything for me. I'm not ungrateful, but I don't have much faith in this health care law. Do I think it's going to work? No. Do I think it's going to bankrupt the country? Yes."

Rupe sounds like he could be standing on a soapbox at a tea-party rally, but he happens to be sitting in a back room at the Family Health Centers' largest clinic in Louisville—signing up for Medicaid. Rupe, who is white, insists that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Africa get more government assistance than he does. (Illegal immigrants do not, in fact, qualify for Medicaid or coverage under the Affordable Care Act.)

He's not alone in thinking this way. A majority of whites believe the health care law will make things worse for them and their families, according to a United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

"President Obama's idea is taking from the working people to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. It's redistribution of wealth," Rupe said. "I've always taken care of myself. You got these young girls who go out and get pregnant and then they get $1,500 a month for having a kid, so they have two."

That's National Journal, not National Review. Totes diff. And Rupe is indicative of more or less the entire southern base of the GOP/TP. He's the conflict of interests and irrational stew of crazy Tom Frank was writing about in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

David Wildstein was our baseball statistician. He was a very quiet, unassuming, brilliant kid. He’d do the baseball stats like you wouldn’t believe. He gave you the stats from the previous week’s games, he had a brilliant mind for numbers and figures….And he was doing it without any of the computers you have today. He’s doing it all with a calculator, none of the fancy technology…You know, averages against righthander and against lefthander, that sort of thing…He knew the game but he wasn’t at all a player. I mean, not at all.

But even deeper than Kentucky's aversion to Obama is its desperation for health care. Nearly one of six Kentuckians is uninsured. The state rates first or near the top nationally in statistics on smoking, cancer deaths, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. In contrast to the slow and tumultuous rollout of the federal website under the new health care law, enrollment in the state-run exchange and Medicaid is surging in the Bluegrass State.

Just don't call it Obamacare. In Kentucky, a marketing campaign has cleverly branded it "kynect."

"It really is strategic," said Barbara Gordon, director of the state's division of social services, which is helping to oversee enrollment. "We've had events where people say, 'This sounds a whole lot better than that Obamacare!' We train our people not to use that word, and it's effective in breaking down that wall against President Obama."

Of course race has nothing to do with this, nosirree Bob. Racism is only found in the Ku Klux Klan, affirmative action, and people who wear Redskins jerseys.

"Auditors will examine how the Christie administration used $25 million set aside for “a marketing campaign to promote the Jersey Shore and encourage tourism,” focusing on the bidding process to award a $4.7 million to a politically connected firm that cast Christie and his family in the Sandy ads, while “a comparable firm proposed billing the state $2.5 million for similar work” but did not include Christie in the commercials."

Post-Modern, and I have to concern: that quiz is ####, because it forces me to pick between two options, both of which are wildly untrue. 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, and maybe one or two others have no true answer. What's a man to do?

Post-Modern, and I have to concern: that quiz is ####, because it forces me to pick between two options, both of which are wildly untrue. 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, and maybe one or two others have no true answer. What's a man to do?

It doesn't ask you to pick the one that is true, just the one that most closely resembles your own beliefs.

The godfather of Post-Modern American Literature, John Barth, put it neatly: "Realty is a nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there." Or, to go even further, it's about narrative: "The story of your life is not your life; it's your story."

There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
. . .
Still, Clinton aides exulted in schadenfreude when their enemies faltered. Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.” [emphasis added]

As our friend Harveys has noted, many people can't sustain the effort to maintain a long-term grudge. The Clintons appear to be an exception.

As our friend Harveys has noted, many people can't sustain the effort to maintain a long-term grudge. The Clintons appear to be an exception.

I think most politicians and politicos are included in the exceptions category... My bet is that the only real dividing line is that the 'nicer' ones take longer to develop a grudge, while the not-so-nice ones develop grudges at the drop of a hat.

As our friend Harveys has noted, many people can't sustain the effort to maintain a long-term grudge. The Clintons appear to be an exception.

As I pointed out last month, there are many Democrats in Washington and elsewhere who know that Hillary hasn't forgiven them for endorsing Obama in 2007-08. Consequently, they have nothing to lose in the next go-round with hooking up with another candidate, particularly an insider like Uncle Joe.

Here are two interesting stories about Obamacare, one from Ezra Klein on HealthCare.gov's Spanglish-language web site, CuidadoDeSalud.gov, while the other is from Phil Klein on the G*d-awful news about the ratio of young people who are signing up for coverage:

The Associated Press reports "the translations were so clunky and full of grammatical mistakes that critics say they must have been computer-generated." The situation is even worse when applicants begin digging into then nitty-gritty of the plans. "When you get into the details of the plans, it's not all written in Spanish. It's written in Spanglish, so we end up having to translate it for them," Adrian Madriz, a health care navigator in Miami, told the AP.

Leading up to the launch of the exchanges Oct. 1, administration officials had been telling reporters that in order to be a success, 2.7 million of the projected 7 million enrollees in the health care law's exchanges would need to be from the young adult demographic. Attracting a critical mass of young and healthy enrollees was seen as necessary to offset the cost of covering older and sicker Americans, particularly those with pre-existing conditions. But in the report, HHS said that just 24 percent of those who signed up so far were aged 18 to 34.

In December, a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation identified a “worst-case scenario” situation in which just 25 percent of enrollees were in the 18-to-34 demographic.

EDIT: Oops. I hadn't noticed that Clapper had mentioned the latter issue in #1151.

"I see no signs at this point of a feared premium 'death spiral.' The insurance market will be stable with an enrollment mix like this," Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told TPM after seeing the new numbers. "But heightened outreach to young people, and even more importantly healthy people, will help to keep premiums down."

Hillary will learn to let go of her grudge if she wants the nomination and the White House in 2016. If the powers that be in your own party are terrified of you gaining power it makes it much less likely that you'll gain that power and Hillary ain't no Obama when it comes to inspiring the masses. She's going to need the machine to win.

Consequently, they have nothing to lose in the next go-round with hooking up with another candidate, particularly an insider like Uncle Joe.

I suspect that anyone I might mention as a potential opponent to Hillary will be dismissed as "wishcasting."

If Hillary runs and there's any kind of organized opposition to her, I would tend to expect it to coalesce around someone with clear lines of demarcation between her and them. A young candidate to run against her age/health, a governor to run against her status as a Washington insider, a candidate from the midwest or mountain states to run against her regional support, etc. Heighten the contradictions, as the line goes. I think it's far too early to know exactly which candidate from the pool of possibilities who meet that description might be the choice, but I'm pretty sure it'll be someone along those lines. It's pretty much the playbook that Obama followed when he faced and beat her, after all.

Biden, meanwhile, doesn't have any clear way of distinguishing himself from Hillary (outside of not having a vagina, of course). He's even older than she is, he's a long-term Washington insider and like her a member of the outgoing administration, he's tied to an even more extensive legislative history (and all the negatives that implies) than she is, and he's a candidate most strongly associated with the NE corridor who lacks obvious connections to other regions. He can't even run against Hillary's record as a weak campaigner and claim that he's the most electable, since he fell on his ass in not one but two prior presidential campaigns, including one where he got run over by notorious hardass Michael Dukakis in spite of entering the race as a presumptive favorite.

"I see no signs at this point of a feared premium 'death spiral.' The insurance market will be stable with an enrollment mix like this," Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told TPM after seeing the new numbers. "But heightened outreach to young people, and even more importantly healthy people, will help to keep premiums down."

Well, that's a relief, Shredder, but Klein doesn't mention "death spiral" in his article. Nonetheless, did Levitt explain why Kaiser, like HHS, is moving the goalposts and no longer considers 24-25 percent a "worst-case scenario?"

I suspect that anyone I might mention as a potential opponent to Hillary will be dismissed as "wishcasting."

You suspect wrong. I deal with active grassroots Dems all the time, and no one is talking about Biden as a serious POTUS candidate. That is just anecdotal, of course, but I see no indicators that Biden will be a viable candidate, for many reasons, including the ones noted in 1184. But a gov or other outsider, like Schweitzer as zonk suggests, could make a legit move.

But HRC is the clear favorite as of now, for many reasons, including the fact that "First woman president" will still be a big deal to many people, even though HRC herself has been in the public eye for 25 years.

So you're claiming that the worst case scenario does not include the death spiral?

Maybe the KFF isn't so much moving the goalposts are they are reading the tea leaves and finding that enrollment is following expected trends. Of course, you could always actually read the article:

But outside experts said there's reason to be optimistic that the ratio will improve during the last three months of open enrollment -- and even if it doesn't strike a perfect balance, the law should be fine.

First of all, most expected the early enrollees to be older and sicker because they need health insurance more urgently. But a number of factors -- including increased awareness and a desire to avoid the individual mandate penalty -- could encourage more young people to sign up in the next three months.

"It is critical to remember that we are still early in the open enrollment period," Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere Health, an independent consulting firm, told TPM. "We have always assumed that older and sicker individuals would be the first to enroll, and younger, healthier people would enroll closer to March. So, we shouldn’t panic about low young adult turn-out at this point because it is to be expected."

You suspect wrong. I deal with active grassroots Dems all the time, and no one is talking about Biden as a serious POTUS candidate. That is just anecdotal, of course, but I see no indicators that Biden will be a viable candidate, for many reasons, including the ones noted in 1184. But a gov or other outsider, like Schweitzer as zonk suggests, could make a legit move.

I have no reason to dispute your grassroots experiences, RR, but in the American Jewish organizational world, it looks as though Biden is checking many, if not all of the right boxes for someone who is seriously considering a run at the top spot.

I don't follow you. Are you saying premium increases themselves are worse than a death spiral, or that we could avoid a death spiral with premium increases? The former is matter of opinion, but the latter is just plain wrong (that's the whole "death" part of a death spiral).

I thought Rudy was the favorite before flaming out in 2008. McCain was the favorite in I believe 2000 before being eclipsed by Bush. Bush I was the favorite as was Gore in 2000 but that goes more along the lines of the VP exception than a clear example of something that solidly disproves the theory. Dole in 1996 is a bit tricky as the establishment kind of viewed him as a Romney in that they kind of figured he'd be the nom but weren't real crazy about him. The big difference is that Dole had Pat Buchanan running against him and once Buchanan picked up some steam the Republicans quickly went with Dole.

Are you saying premium increases themselves are worse than a death spiral, or that we could avoid a death spiral with premium increases? The former is matter of opinion, but the latter is just plain wrong (that's the whole "death" part of a death spiral).

Maybe the KFF isn't so much moving the goalposts are they are reading the tea leaves and finding that enrollment is following expected trends.

Where is the evidence in the subsequent quote that something had changed between December's report and today? Pearson doesn't work for Kaiser; she is with an "independent consulting firm." (Sorry, but TPM's idea of "independent" is often very different from what the rest of us consider "unbiased.")

By my count that's one case of "the clear favorite not being nominated;" Obama in 2008. Otherwise, the playbook seems to be well written before the primaries. I guess you could argue that W Bush was a bit of a dark horse against McCain in 2000, but not by any large margin. Certainly not by the "Hillary is the nominee as of 2005" assumptions.